ILCD Monitoring Process Training Location: Norfolk Public School's Central Office
512 Philip Avenue
Room 202 - upstairs
Norfolk, NE 68701
Time: 9:00-11:30
Participants:This regional discussion is intended for the facilitators and whoever attends the facilitator's meetings and are part of the grant. This is not for every district and the people who serve on the ILCD team. The point is to discuss the monitoring process and to identify the facilitator's role in that process since it is a NDE responsibility, per Jeanne Heaston, NDE.
Topic: NDE Representatives will train on the monitoring responsibilities and/or changes in what was referred to in the past as the 'self-assessment' aspect of ILCD.
Monitoring Process Training for ILCD FacilitatorsESU 1, 2, 7, and 8 FacilitatorsOctober 8, 2010Agenda Overview of Monitoring – NDE Responsibility
Want to look at file reviews and facilitators the same way.
ILCD is a self-assessment process, not the MONITORING process.
Needs to be a district level process. Facilitators become very important...conduit for state to school districts
Monitoring is more than file review.
School districts need to rate themselves once every 5 years.
Expectations for NDE staff in ILCD:
Not the sole responsibility of facilitator
engaged in ILCD process with district
not turning entire process over to facilitator
involve facilitator in the process
need to know where the districts are in the process; at each phase
review data at the end of each phase
facilitators' access to ILCD website is determined by administrator and/or Sped Director at ESU
Review the Monitoring Steps and Final Report
Monitoring Report by NDE:
Documents NDE and School District when through the process
This document will identify if the forms the District uses are still in compliance
There are not state forms that NDE is required to use for IEPs, but IFSP does have 2 forms. These IFSP forms have instructions on the website. There is an IFSP tutorial for training.
The report will not go on the ILCD website until the year following so there is an opportunity to have the corrections done and the district to be in compliance. Then the monitoring process is finished.
Policies and Procedures:
Need to give to NDE when there is a change in what they are doing.
historically has been a big issue
thinking of doing a Statement of Assurances
important because if compliance issue (complaint, due process) will look at the file and the procedures that have led the district into the compliance issues
District Determination:
correction would be 30-60 days.
Role of NDE Representative in ILCD Process
NDE more involvement in phases, may not need to come out to district in phase 3
Review ratings, review how they got there, and here they were rated
Q & A: Is there any plan to scrap ILCD? Jeanne says it is here to stay. It may go through some more changes. Need to take monitoring out of self-assessment and have NDE do the monitoring stage.
Q & A: Sped Dir: Really feel NDE should not make a yearly visit, after Phase 3 and 5 is enough. Jeanne: can do it by data, off site, and not have to be at the district.
Q & A: Can we have the NDE approved forms/example forms with sample/bogus info in the blanks that would be compliant? Jeanne says yes, it sounds like a good idea for new staff and for clarification. Could use the File Review training tool points to put in those blanks. It will also help with NDE staff.
Q & A: Sped Dir: Concerned that pulling the facilitator out of the ILCD process too much will not be a good thing. School Districts have relationships with facilitators and Dir. feels that if NDE starts making those visits to School District, then it will become a punitive visit rather than an improvement visit. Jeanne: ILCD is much more than file review.
Q & A: Define the 45 days to initial evaluation. Jeanne: 45 days from receipt of the consent to the date the testing is finished. It is a good idea to use the MDT because there is a date on the MDT. There is no Rule requirement to have an MDT meeting. The report is required. Have to be careful because if team waits until parent is present for meeting and waits to provide services, then parent can say School District is denying the student FAPE. Cannot add to rule as a requirement. Still need clarification of evaluation vs. determination.
Q & A: Rule says MDT evaluation needs to be completed within 45 days. Indicator 11 says determination decision needs to be made within 45 days. What date do we use? NDE: will need to look into it. If the date on the MDT team report is where the determination is made, then use that date. So if report is finished within the 45 school days, then it is okay. Even if parents have not been present for the meeting. So, if date is coming and need to have the determination, then professionals can meet and make the determination, put the date on it, and get in touch with the parents at a later time.
Q & A: Will we only look at the date, or will we look at members? If we take the element of the team out of it, then districts may go back to just having one person make the decision. NDE: only the date on the report. Put the recommendations for team in the Policies/Procedures.
Q & A: Who has to be involved in MDT? NDE: only person stated in rule is PARENT. 006.03A
Q & A: Facilitator: If getting close on time, should districts call ILCD facilitator for ideas? NDE: no, call the Sped Director. Compliance questions should go to Special Education Directors.
Q & A: If questions come about file compliance, who answers them? NDE: calls need to come to NDE Rep.
Q & A: Are rules in Rule 51 there to help decisions for improvement? NDE: Yes
Comments:
Need to make sure when discussing with districts they know information is either Part C or Part B.
ILCD is not compliance monitoring.
Facilitators should not feel like they have to run file review.
NDE will come to Director if the district is out of compliance.
No district is REQUIRED to have ILCD facilitator involved. It is their choice.
ILCD is self assessment process, monitoring is something different, file review is NOT ILCD.
Pete's opinion: Maybe should make this competitive, to bring the bar up.
11:30 AM Adjourn
Region III Business Meeting REGION III NASES MINUTESOctober 8, 2010
Larianne Polk called the meeting to order and introduced Lisa Pospishil from Norfolk Public Schools. Lisa presented on “Digital Curriculum and SPED Students”.
Those present at the meeting were: Larianne Polk, ESU #7; Ruth Miller, ESU #8; Molly Aschoff, ESU #8; Darus Mettler, ESU #8; Sally Giitinger, NCECBVI; Jan Curry, ESU #7; Theresa Ferg, ESU #2; Jason Harris, ESU #7 Columbus Public; Frank Hebenstreit, Norfolk Public; Shelly Skogstad, ESU #1; Stuart Clark, ESU #1; Rita Hammitt, NDE; Joan Luebbers, NDE; Jeanne Heaston, NDE; Pete Biaggio, NDE; Peggy Ronshek, Mitchell Public-NASES President; Joyce Olson, Boone Central; and Jean Bierschenk, Secretary.
Sally Giitinger from NCECBVI distributed handouts and reported on the Administration R & R (Resource & Realities). Upcoming events were handed out. Sally encouraged anyone knowing of younger teachers who might be interested in becoming a Teacher of the Visually Impaired to contact her. Tuition is paid for those taking the course through the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Sally also shared some new products available for check-out through the Resource Center. Sally then presented some trivia questions with token books given to the winners.
Members are encouraged to pay the NASES dues. (That’s what has helped pay the meals at the meetings, although now the money is gone!)
SRS Advisory Committee will be meeting November 3rd from 12:30 to 4:30 p.m. at ESU #3. Any questions or concerns prior to that meeting can be directed to Ruth Miller at ruth@esu8.org
Stuart Clark explained that the SRS forms are under review to see if they meet compliance requirements and what the best practice for usage is. Pete Biaggio added that after the last ILCD review, some items can be expected to change – example: date of IEP and another field for dates of service from and to.
Peggy Ronshek reported on the NASES Executive Board meeting. New NASES members can go to the website: http\sites.google.com\site\nasesnewmember\home. The site lists a wealth of information for new members. Volunteers are needed from each region to keep the site updated. Stuart Clark thanked Peggy for all the hard work she has done on this site.
Peggy reported CASE has made recommendations at the National level and Nebraska has recommended most of them.
Peggy announced that Brenda McNiff, ESU #5 received the New SPED Director Award.
At the NASES Executive Board meeting, it was celebrated that IDEA has been in existence for 35 years and cake was served.
Larianne reported on LB 1087. Any agencies who received payment from NDE have received the forms. Contact Jill Weatherly to make a claim.
Stuart suggested members discuss with elected officials any laws related to Special Education. Members need to be lobbyists for your own issues. Pete suggested the Region III NASES invite senators or their aids to a meeting to discuss special education issues.
Upcoming trainings were listed on the agenda. The reason the NASES Spring Conference is in Scottsbluff as that is where the NASES President lives. Peggy reported there are several exciting things being pursued for this meeting including a speaker from Texas on RtI, a tour of Life Link, presenter on Trends in Special Education, and others. Western hospitality will be found for those who attend.
Discussion was held on the 90 minute reading blocks and special education.
Frank Hebenstreit reported on Norfolk’s Project Search and how well it is going. Norfolk Public School’s is working with Faith Regional Health Service, supplying one 1/2 time teacher, full time job coach, along with working with Vocational Rehabilitation. The program is showing remarkable progress with the students involved. Jason Harris also reported that Columbus is starting the same type of project and working with several districts in the area.
Minutes
ILCD Monitoring Process Training
Location: Norfolk Public School's Central Office
512 Philip Avenue
Room 202 - upstairs
Norfolk, NE 68701
Time: 9:00-11:30
Participants:This regional discussion is intended for the facilitators and whoever attends the facilitator's meetings and are part of the grant. This is not for every district and the people who serve on the ILCD team. The point is to discuss the monitoring process and to identify the facilitator's role in that process since it is a NDE responsibility, per Jeanne Heaston, NDE.
Topic: NDE Representatives will train on the monitoring responsibilities and/or changes in what was referred to in the past as the 'self-assessment' aspect of ILCD.
Monitoring Process Training for ILCD FacilitatorsESU 1, 2, 7, and 8 FacilitatorsOctober 8, 2010Agenda
Overview of Monitoring – NDE Responsibility
Want to look at file reviews and facilitators the same way.
ILCD is a self-assessment process, not the MONITORING process.
Needs to be a district level process. Facilitators become very important...conduit for state to school districts
Monitoring is more than file review.
School districts need to rate themselves once every 5 years.
Expectations for NDE staff in ILCD:
Review the Monitoring Steps and Final Report
Monitoring Report by NDE:
Role of NDE Representative in ILCD Process
Q & A: Is there any plan to scrap ILCD? Jeanne says it is here to stay. It may go through some more changes. Need to take monitoring out of self-assessment and have NDE do the monitoring stage.
Q & A: Sped Dir: Really feel NDE should not make a yearly visit, after Phase 3 and 5 is enough. Jeanne: can do it by data, off site, and not have to be at the district.
Q & A: Can we have the NDE approved forms/example forms with sample/bogus info in the blanks that would be compliant? Jeanne says yes, it sounds like a good idea for new staff and for clarification. Could use the File Review training tool points to put in those blanks. It will also help with NDE staff.
Q & A: Sped Dir: Concerned that pulling the facilitator out of the ILCD process too much will not be a good thing. School Districts have relationships with facilitators and Dir. feels that if NDE starts making those visits to School District, then it will become a punitive visit rather than an improvement visit. Jeanne: ILCD is much more than file review.
Q & A: Define the 45 days to initial evaluation. Jeanne: 45 days from receipt of the consent to the date the testing is finished. It is a good idea to use the MDT because there is a date on the MDT. There is no Rule requirement to have an MDT meeting. The report is required. Have to be careful because if team waits until parent is present for meeting and waits to provide services, then parent can say School District is denying the student FAPE. Cannot add to rule as a requirement. Still need clarification of evaluation vs. determination.
Q & A: Rule says MDT evaluation needs to be completed within 45 days. Indicator 11 says determination decision needs to be made within 45 days. What date do we use? NDE: will need to look into it. If the date on the MDT team report is where the determination is made, then use that date. So if report is finished within the 45 school days, then it is okay. Even if parents have not been present for the meeting. So, if date is coming and need to have the determination, then professionals can meet and make the determination, put the date on it, and get in touch with the parents at a later time.
Q & A: Will we only look at the date, or will we look at members? If we take the element of the team out of it, then districts may go back to just having one person make the decision. NDE: only the date on the report. Put the recommendations for team in the Policies/Procedures.
Q & A: Who has to be involved in MDT? NDE: only person stated in rule is PARENT. 006.03A
Q & A: Facilitator: If getting close on time, should districts call ILCD facilitator for ideas? NDE: no, call the Sped Director. Compliance questions should go to Special Education Directors.
Q & A: If questions come about file compliance, who answers them? NDE: calls need to come to NDE Rep.
Q & A: Are rules in Rule 51 there to help decisions for improvement? NDE: Yes
Comments:
Need to make sure when discussing with districts they know information is either Part C or Part B.
ILCD is not compliance monitoring.
Facilitators should not feel like they have to run file review.
NDE will come to Director if the district is out of compliance.
No district is REQUIRED to have ILCD facilitator involved. It is their choice.
ILCD is self assessment process, monitoring is something different, file review is NOT ILCD.
Pete's opinion: Maybe should make this competitive, to bring the bar up.
11:30 AM Adjourn
Region III Business Meeting
REGION III NASES MINUTES October 8, 2010
Larianne Polk called the meeting to order and introduced Lisa Pospishil from Norfolk Public Schools. Lisa presented on “Digital Curriculum and SPED Students”.
AT Fair Info:
http://web.me.com/memoryalphacenter/atfair
Lil' Sucker website:) I like the medium.
http://www.lilsucker.ca/
Those present at the meeting were: Larianne Polk, ESU #7; Ruth Miller, ESU #8; Molly Aschoff, ESU #8; Darus Mettler, ESU #8; Sally Giitinger, NCECBVI; Jan Curry, ESU #7; Theresa Ferg, ESU #2; Jason Harris, ESU #7 Columbus Public; Frank Hebenstreit, Norfolk Public; Shelly Skogstad, ESU #1; Stuart Clark, ESU #1; Rita Hammitt, NDE; Joan Luebbers, NDE; Jeanne Heaston, NDE; Pete Biaggio, NDE; Peggy Ronshek, Mitchell Public-NASES President; Joyce Olson, Boone Central; and Jean Bierschenk, Secretary.
Sally Giitinger from NCECBVI distributed handouts and reported on the Administration R & R (Resource & Realities). Upcoming events were handed out. Sally encouraged anyone knowing of younger teachers who might be interested in becoming a Teacher of the Visually Impaired to contact her. Tuition is paid for those taking the course through the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Sally also shared some new products available for check-out through the Resource Center. Sally then presented some trivia questions with token books given to the winners.
Members are encouraged to pay the NASES dues. (That’s what has helped pay the meals at the meetings, although now the money is gone!)
SRS Advisory Committee will be meeting November 3rd from 12:30 to 4:30 p.m. at ESU #3. Any questions or concerns prior to that meeting can be directed to Ruth Miller at ruth@esu8.org
Stuart Clark explained that the SRS forms are under review to see if they meet compliance requirements and what the best practice for usage is. Pete Biaggio added that after the last ILCD review, some items can be expected to change – example: date of IEP and another field for dates of service from and to.
Peggy Ronshek reported on the NASES Executive Board meeting. New NASES members can go to the website: http\sites.google.com\site\nasesnewmember\home. The site lists a wealth of information for new members. Volunteers are needed from each region to keep the site updated. Stuart Clark thanked Peggy for all the hard work she has done on this site.
Peggy reported CASE has made recommendations at the National level and Nebraska has recommended most of them.
Peggy announced that Brenda McNiff, ESU #5 received the New SPED Director Award.
At the NASES Executive Board meeting, it was celebrated that IDEA has been in existence for 35 years and cake was served.
Larianne reported on LB 1087. Any agencies who received payment from NDE have received the forms. Contact Jill Weatherly to make a claim.
Stuart suggested members discuss with elected officials any laws related to Special Education. Members need to be lobbyists for your own issues. Pete suggested the Region III NASES invite senators or their aids to a meeting to discuss special education issues.
Upcoming trainings were listed on the agenda. The reason the NASES Spring Conference is in Scottsbluff as that is where the NASES President lives. Peggy reported there are several exciting things being pursued for this meeting including a speaker from Texas on RtI, a tour of Life Link, presenter on Trends in Special Education, and others. Western hospitality will be found for those who attend.
Discussion was held on the 90 minute reading blocks and special education.
Frank Hebenstreit reported on Norfolk’s Project Search and how well it is going. Norfolk Public School’s is working with Faith Regional Health Service, supplying one 1/2 time teacher, full time job coach, along with working with Vocational Rehabilitation. The program is showing remarkable progress with the students involved. Jason Harris also reported that Columbus is starting the same type of project and working with several districts in the area.
The meeting was adjourned.
Jean Bierschenk, Secretary
Region III meetings